Councillors have approved controversial plans for a small solar farm near the Bath skyline trail.
Retired professor Dr Alyson Warhurst said she had faced a “determined and effective disinformation campaign” after submitting a planning application for 320 panels in the grounds of her home at Rainbow Wood House.
The panels would generate 120 per cent of the electricity used by her Grade II listed home, but neighbours warned the project was too large and in the wrong place in the beautiful city.
Now councillors on Bath & North East Somerset Council’s planning committee have voted to allow the development to go ahead.
Planning committee member Fiona Gourley (Bathavon South, Liberal Democrat) told the committee’s meeting on 18th March: “We are in a climate crisis and we do need to reduce our fossil fuel dependence so I think, from that point of view, I would be in favour of this going through — although I totally understand how the neighbours are very concerned about it.”
185 people had objected to the plan, and objectors even set up a website to organise opposition to the plans.
The website, www.savebathskyline.com, states: “This is not opposition to solar energy. Solar can be the right kind of development but this is the wrong size in the wrong place.”
Speaking on behalf of objectors at the meeting, Sasha Berezina of Context Planning warned that the location just off Widcombe Hill was “one of the most sensitive locations in the city.”
She said: “Supporting renewable energy does not mean that any proposal in any location of any scale is acceptable.”
But Dr Warhurst insisted the solar panels would be well-screened. She said: “It will achieve significant carbon reduction with limited harm to the greenbelt.
“It is forecast to save over 30 tonnes of carbon per year, equivalent to the carbon uptake of 1,400 mature broadleaf trees.”
She pointed out that it would be about 35 acres of mature forest, while the solar panels would just take up a quarter of an acre in Rainbow Wood House’s garden.
She added: “It is absolutely right in a democratic society that people should have the opportunity to comment. There must be considered debate.
“So I was dismayed that a few individuals distributed an anonymous website and post campaign to spread disinformation, with cut and post objections subsequently appearing on the planning portal.
“The campaign was lacking in integrity, reason, and fairness in that regard.”
The council’s planning officers had recommended that the scheme be approved. Although its heritage officer said the panels would be “industrial” and planning officers said it was technically “inappropriate development in the green belt,” they argued that the climate benefits outweighed the negatives.
Councillor Toby Simon told the meeting: “I am by no means convinced it is inappropriate development.”
He said: “I think the balance here between the house being able to reduce its energy demand and the very limited impact on the protected area is greatly in favour of allowing this energy efficient solution.”
Instead of planning approval being granted to the applicant right away, councillors delegated power to council officers to grant permission so that the public could view and have their say on proposed conditions around ecology on the site first.
John Wimperis, Local Democracy Reporter
